Re: Gould Evolution big book

Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> Rick Wagler wrote:
> > "JAE" <jae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1117663307.533832.154020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > > mark@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >> JAE wrote:
> > >> > [snip]
> > >>
> > >> Is that big "recent" SJGould book on Evolution (looks about 1000 pgs) a
> > >> good one to read for the synthetic concepts?
> > >
> > > Haven't really spent much (any) time with that one, but I found Gould's
> > > takes to be pretty good on theory, if a bit sidetracked. He certainly
> > > had a good feel for evolutionary pluralism.
> > >
> > > Futayama's stuff if not as accessible, tends to be very good. Larry
> > > Moran has some good summaries with references on the Talk.origins faqs
> > > and he may have commented on Gould's book.
> > >
> > Another good book from a paleontologists perspective
> > is Steven Stanley's Macroevolution. All the classics
> > Simpson, Mayr, Dobzhansky etc - not to mention the Big
> > Guy himself - should be got around to by anyone
> > seriously interested in the subject. I'm in the process
> > of going through Gould's book and it is a good read
> > especially on the history of the concept and the development
> > of the modern synthesis. He does quite a number on Dawkins
> > which Algis should probably take a look at :-)
>
> >From the perspective of science attempting to achieve a
> principle based underlying theory, the new synthesis
> (sometimes called the modern synthesis) is a mess.
> Mostly it involves a plethora of vague and ambiguous
> terminology and it relies greatly on the fact that most
> the audience lacks the intellectual fortitude to achieve
> a level of rigour that would allow them to realize that
> much of the time the concepts being discussed, drift
> being a perfect example, are the result of this vague
> and/or ambiguous terminology and not the result of
> empirical observation. It's an incredibly difficult
> subject, chalk full of all kinds of philosophical
> pitfalls. A lot of the concepts persist not because
> they are valuable or useful but because the philophical
> implications of the valuable and useful alternatives are
> so stark (especially when it comes to man's belief in
> free will). No easy answers here folks.
>
> Science ain't for sissies.

Ah, the irony.


>
> Jim
.